On 7/13/07, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mario Goebbels wrote:
> >> While the original reason for this was swap, I have a sneaky suspicion
> >> that others may wish for this as well, or perhaps something else.
> >> Thoughts? (database folks, jump in :-)
> >
> > Lower overhead stora
> >> While the original reason for this was swap, I have a sneaky suspicion
> >> that others may wish for this as well, or perhaps something else.
> >> Thoughts? (database folks, jump in :-)
> >
> > Lower overhead storage for my QEMU volumes. I figure other filesystems
> > running within a ZVOL
Thanks for suggesting a broader discussion about the needs and possible
uses for specialized storage objects within a pool. In doing so, part
of that discussion should include the effect upon overall complexity
and manageability as well as conceptual coherence.
In his blog post on ZFS layering
Mario Goebbels wrote:
>> While the original reason for this was swap, I have a sneaky suspicion
>> that others may wish for this as well, or perhaps something else.
>> Thoughts? (database folks, jump in :-)
>
> Lower overhead storage for my QEMU volumes. I figure other filesystems
> running with
Bill Sommerfeld wrote:
> On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:27 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
>
>> I think we should up-level this and extend to the community for comments.
>> The proposal, as I see it, is to create a simple,
>>
> yes
>
>
>> contiguous (?)
>>
> as I understand the proposal, n
> While the original reason for this was swap, I have a sneaky suspicion
> that others may wish for this as well, or perhaps something else.
> Thoughts? (database folks, jump in :-)
Lower overhead storage for my QEMU volumes. I figure other filesystems running
within a ZVOL may cause a little bi
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:27 -0700, Richard Elling wrote:
> I think we should up-level this and extend to the community for comments.
> The proposal, as I see it, is to create a simple,
yes
> contiguous (?)
as I understand the proposal, not necessarily contiguous.
> space which sits in a zpool.
Lori Alt wrote:
>>> Treat a pseudo-zvol like you would a slice.
>>
>> So these new zvol-like things don't support snapshots, etc, right?
>> I take it they work by allowing overwriting of the data, correct?
> yes, and yes
>> Are these a zslice?
> I suppose we could call them that. That's be
